Jump to content

The name of the Church is not negotiable


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What do you make of the air quotes around the word “Mormonism”.? Aren’t air quotes often used to connote disapproval of the term within the quotation marks? 

Perhaps, though I don't believe air quotes were really a thing back in 1844.

What I do know, however, is that the quotation marks around the word Mormonism were not present in the original publication - which can be accessed online via the Joseph Smith Papers project, here.

I don't have access to every published edition of the D&C, so I'm not sure when the editorial decision was made to add them.

They are obviously present in the 1981 version that we use today, but I'm not sure about previous versions. If anyone has access to those and can pinpoint when the change first appeared, I would kind of be interested in knowing.

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Perhaps, though I don't believe air quotes were really a thing back in 1844.

What I do know, however, is that the quotation marks around the word Mormonism were not present in the original publication - which can be accessed online via the Joseph Smith Papers project, here.

I don't have access to every published edition of the D&C, so I'm not sure when the editorial decision was made to add them.

They are obviously present in the 1981 version that we use today, but I'm not sure about previous versions. If anyone has access to those and can pinpoint when the change first appeared, I would kind of be interested in knowing.

 

I’m 100 percent certain the colloquial term air quotes did not exist in 1844. I’m equally certain that the concept has existed for many years, as though to say, “This is not a term I would feel comfortable using, so I’m putting quotation marks around it to imply that I’m imputing it to a person or persons who WOULD use it.”

As to the quotation marks not being present in the original, the claim that Narrator was advancing is that God must approve of the term because it’s in canonized scripture. Well, canonized scripture as it exists today and in the many years leading up to today does have the quotation marks around the term in that verse. So, considering that the text as it stands today reflects the position of the Church, your comment does nothing to support his claim. 
 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, the narrator said:

John Taylor uses Mormonism a couple times in this account of the martyrdom, as well as repeated use of Mormons.

Tell that to Joseph Smith, who embraced "Mormonism" here, here, here, here ("Mormonism is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ; of which I myself, am not asham’d."). Furthermore, it's very obvious from the dozens upon dozens of uses of "Mormonism" by Mormons of the 1840s that it had widely been embraced by this point.

If you think Nelson was inspired to demand this change, then that's fine. Let's just not play these weird games to try to make the past in agreement with him.

Whatever John Taylor or others did or did not do in the 1840s is irrelevant to your claim that the presence of the word in canonized scripture indicates God approves of it, since the quotation marks are around the word as it stands in the scriptural passage today and in the  many years leading up to today. 
 

The fact that the Church leaders utilized the writing of John Taylor — or whomever it was that wrote them originally — does not negate the fact that the leadership of the Church, acting under inspiration and authority, made editorial preparations for inclusion of them in the scriptural canon. 
 

And again, the notion that Jesus Christ endorses the word Mormonism as a name for His Church overtly contradicts His words as recorded in 3 Nephi. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

Oh what a wonderful world!

All we have to argue about is scare/air quotes!

To what exalted heights has the humble " symbol risen!!

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Lolz. Nice strawman. Nobody that I am aware of is claiming that "Mormonism" could be the name of the Church. I certainly haven't. In fact, as I pointed out above, Taylor seems to use "Mormonism" to encompass all those parts of the Restoration that are not the establishment of an institutional church. There is much of Mormonism that is not the institutional church, and while Nelson's campaign to basically excise all that isn't directly related to rituals enacted by the institutional church, the fact remains that Mormonism--that broader category of things beyond the institution--exists in the past, present, and will continue into the future, and that not only does the present formal name of the Church not describe nor delineate them, it would IMO be inappropriate, nonsensical, and at times dishonest to label those with the institutional name.

I wrote more about the challenges of not using variations of "Mormon" here. Perhaps you could respond to what people are actually arguing rather than flexing against windmills and the boogeyman.

I was responding to your suggestion that Christ must approve of “Mormonism” as a name for His Church because it appears in scripture. I thought that silly, and I still do. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was responding to your suggestion that Christ must approve of “Mormonism” as a name for His Church because it appears in scripture. I thought that silly, and I still do. 

Dude, what's with the strawman? Are you so insecure about your ability to engage actual claims that you instead keep punching at fantasies? Where did I ever suggest "that Christ must approve of “Mormonism” as a name for His Church"? To the contrary, I repeatedly made it explicitly clear that I was saying that "Mormonism" was an apt identifier for those aspects of Mormonism that were *not* the institutional church.*** My appeal to D&C 135 was merely pointing out that from within the traditional and common Mormon understanding of scripture (I use "Mormon" here because it doesn't seem entirely clear that their is an official, institutional--aka Latter-day Saint--understanding of what canonized scripture necessarily means), the inclusion of this language to describe those things beyond the institutional Church implies that it is both inspired and approved of by God. I'm also confident in saying that I am *not* capable of claiming what God actually approves of here.

 

*** 

21 hours ago, the narrator said:

I like the word that John Taylor used in canonized scripture to describe all the things that Joseph Smith did that were outside explicitly establishing a named organization

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Nobody that I am aware of is claiming that "Mormonism" could be the name of the Church.

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Taylor seems to use "Mormonism" to encompass all those parts of the Restoration that are not the establishment of an institutional church.

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

There is much of Mormonism that is not the institutional church,

 

Edited by the narrator
Link to comment
2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Dude, what's with the strawman? Are you so insecure about your ability to engage actual claims that you instead keep punching at fantasies? Where did I ever suggest "that Christ must approve of “Mormonism” as a name for His Church"? To the contrary, I repeatedly made it explicitly clear that I was saying that "Mormonism" was an apt identifier for those aspects of Mormonism that were *not* the institutional church.*** My appeal to D&C 135 was merely pointing out that from within the traditional and common Mormon understanding of scripture (I use "Mormon" here because it doesn't seem entirely clear that their is an official, institutional--aka Latter-day Saint--understanding of what canonized scripture necessarily means), the inclusion of this language to describe those things beyond the institutional Church implies that it is both inspired and approved of by God. I'm also confident in saying that I am *not* capable of claiming what God actually approves of here.

 

*** 

 

Agreed, it seems quite clear from MY pov that "Mormonism" is, by default, a representation for the cultural aspects and beliefs of MEMBERS of the church which stretch far beyond the Doctrine and teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and in fact may actually conflict with canonical doctrine.  One example might be that the belief  that "we get our own planets when we die", which is of course a total distortion of what we actually believe.  An article explaining the correct Doctrine, for example, might be part of the discipline correctly called "Mormon Studies" because the erroneous teaching comes from a cultural distortion of what the Doctrine actually is.

But as these quotes show, leadership has already in fact accepted the term "Mormon" long ago

If the appellation "Mormon" never existed, or if we had not accepted it, we would not be in this position, but once something becomes part of the language, it BECOMES the ordained term for what it is.

Who says "Do you have a bathroom tissue?" instead of "Do you have a Kleenex"?

How about "Where's your Xerox?"

All the advertising in the world has not fully changed the usage of that terminology.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

If the appellation "Mormon" never existed, or if we had not accepted it, we would not be in this position, but once something becomes part of the language, it BECOMES the ordained term for what it is.

 

And, of course if "Mormonism" never existed, then some other similar term/name would have been constructed to identify those things that "Mormonism" has been a referent to.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, the narrator said:
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If the appellation "Mormon" never existed, or if we had not accepted it, we would not be in this position, but once something becomes part of the language, it BECOMES the ordained term for what it is.

 

And, of course if "Mormonism" never existed, then some other similar term/name would have been constructed to identify those things that "Mormonism" has been a referent to.

Actually the correct term for members of the Church is Brighamites 😉

Link to comment
6 hours ago, the narrator said:

And, of course if "Mormonism" never existed, then some other similar term/name would have been constructed to identify those things that "Mormonism" has been a referent to.

Words symbolically create "things", mentally and spiritually at first, which we can manipulate and design, turning them around mentally through the light of Christ's intelligence, before we create them physically.

John 1:

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

Link to comment
On 10/3/2021 at 5:32 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Another talk on the name of the Church. 

I would say that the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and the
"Church of the Firstborn" refer to two different churches; for only exalted beings are 
said to be members of the latter (D&C 76:54-60).

Link to comment
2 hours ago, theplains said:

I would say that the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and the
"Church of the Firstborn" refer to two different churches; for only exalted beings are 
said to be members of the latter (D&C 76:54-60).

Semantics.  One can see the same thing from many angles.   If you were underneath a pyramid, looking up, or straight above it looking down, it would be a "square".  :)

From any of the four sides, it would be a "triangle."   But which is it REALLY?

Everything depends on your point of view

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 10/6/2021 at 1:42 PM, mfbukowski said:

Who says "Do you have a bathroom tissue?" instead of "Do you have a Kleenex"?

How about "Where's your Xerox?"

All the advertising in the world has not fully changed the usage of that terminology.

 

Amen…. “Welcome to Mel’s Diner. Would you like a coke? Yes I’d love one. Ok what flavor? I’ll have a root beer please.” 
 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Amen…. “Welcome to Mel’s Diner. Would you like a coke? Yes I’d love one. Ok what flavor? I’ll have a root beer please.” 
 

Yep there you go.  One of my favorites is Dr. Pepper coke, when I am in Texas. ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, theplains said:

Does that mean you believe some members of the Church of the Firstborn won't be gods?

That's like asking if some bachelors will be married.

I don't know where the line is that qualifies one to be at that level, if there is one, but the CotF clearly implies exaltation.

Link to comment
On 10/4/2021 at 7:46 AM, pogi said:

I have made a sincere effort to stop using the terms "Mormon" or "LDS".  The one term that I still can't find a suitable replacement for and frequently end up relying on is "Mormonism". 

The Catholic church has Catholicism.  Evangelical churches have Evangelism.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has...???  What term is there that can so succinctly capture the larger culture and beliefs that belong to and describe the ways of life of Latter-day Saints?    

Any suggestions?  I'm not a fan of Latter-day Saintism (but unfortunately, I think that might be the next best thing).  Restorationism won't work because it is a shared term with other restoration churches and is too limited in its scope.  I am at a loss. 

Just use more words.  I think you may be stuck on the idea that you need a one word catch-all for everything pertaining or involving the Church, maybe even exclusively referring to only the Church.  Our Lord called his way the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Maybe use one of those words, or all 3, and any other words you can think of to refer to things that involve the Church and the Way and Truth and Life of the Church.  Or just say Jesus, since he is all that we hope to be and strive to represent.

These one word catch-all can be fun and useful sometimes but we can use as many words as we want to use rather than thinking we need to try to encapsulate everything with only one word.  And always be prepared for naysayers who do not agree.

Link to comment
On 10/8/2021 at 10:59 AM, theplains said:

I would say that the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and the
"Church of the Firstborn" refer to two different churches; for only exalted beings are 
said to be members of the latter (D&C 76:54-60).

I would say it's the same Church, just known by different names before and after the main event.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

The author adds a valid perspective to all of this:

Quote

leaders of a tiny religion that was about 0.2% of the world’s population issued a decree that members of their faith would ever after be known as something else, and expected the other 99.8% of the world to immediately and drastically alter the language to accommodate that decree.

 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

 

The author adds a valid perspective to all of this:

 

I read that article too!

I’d be curious to know if the same members that love to correct others’ use of the term “Mormon” are also the same that adamantly refuse to use people’s preferred pronouns when the latter differs from outward appearance and Latter-day Saint dogma.

 

Edited by Canadiandude
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I read that article too!

I’d be curious to know if the same members that love to correct others’ use of the term “Mormon” are also the same that adamantly refuse to use people’s preferred pronouns when the latter differs from outward appearance and Latter-day Saint dogma.

 

This is an excellent point.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...